First off, this ET video by war correspondent Michael Yon, who was at the Capitol. Chilling, and worth every second:
According to ABC News:Insty, MATT TAIBBI: Who’s Promoting A Civil War? The Media.
According to sources familiar with the matter, authorities believe Sicknick’s death was driven by a medical condition. They’re also investigating reports that he was attacked with a fire extinguisher or another item at the Capitol, sources said. So far, reports of an attack haven’t been confirmed and authorities are hoping to locate video or other imagery from the scene.The family’s statement echoed a similar sentiment:
Many details regarding Wednesday’s events and the direct causes of Brian’s injuries remain unknown and our family asks the public and the press to respect our wishes in not making Brian’s passing a political issue.
The moment a group of people stormed the Capitol building last Wednesday, news companies began the process of sorting and commoditizing information that long ago became standard in American media.TNP, Cops, Kids, Reporters & Activists Were Murdered As Democrats Incited 2020 Riots… Now They’ve Accused Trump Of Their Tactics.
Media firms work backward. They first ask, “How does our target demographic want to understand what’s just unfolded?” Then they pick both the words and the facts they want to emphasize.
It’s why Fox News uses the term, “Pro-Trump protesters,” while New York and The Atlantic use “Insurrectionists.” It’s why conservative media today is stressing how Apple, Google, and Amazon shut down the “Free Speech” platform Parler over the weekend, while mainstream outlets are emphasizing a new round of potentially armed protests reportedly planned for January 19th or 20th.
Michael Sherwin, a federal prosecutor, questioned about President Trump’s role in the Capitol riots, refused to rule out criminal charges against the POTUS. He’s the acting U.S. Attorney for D.C. and has repeatedly assured reporters in a press call that he would investigate and charge “all actors” involved in Wednesday’s riot.
And onto the upcoming impeachment. NEO, Impeachment redux
I don’t think the Democrats think this process will ever be turned against them. The only situation in which that could happen is if a Democrat president had a Republican Congress willing to go that far. Because the Democrats don’t expect to ever lose a national election again, they don’t think that will occur. And they intend to be the ones who write the history books.Sarah Hoyt at Insty, LOOK, THOSE OF US WHO ARE NUMERATE ALREADY KNEW THE ELECTION WAS FRAUDULENT: Impeachment redux.
The fact that the courts then went on to refuse to even look at the case, on crazy technicalities, rather than allow discovery, was a huge, massive red flag too. Look, in a system like yours, if you think that the election was stolen, both parties should be interested in showing it wasn’t. This is why Trump allowed the entire Russia!Russia!Russia insanity to run its course.
But if you’re one of those terminally polyannish people who think “but maybe it was okay” this should be your biggest flag. No one makes it a crime to talk about the election being fraudulent if it was above board.
On Da Wire, Article Of Impeachment Against Trump To Be Introduced Monday In House. Mike Brest at WaEx, GOP senator: Trump 'committed impeachable offenses' (Pat Toomey). At Da Blaze, McConnell signals that second impeachment trial won't happen while Trump is still in office
Beth Baumann at Town Hall, Jonathan Turley Issues a Warning to Democrats About Impeachment 2.0. On Da Hill, Jonathon Turley: Swift new impeachment would damage the Constitution
Democrats are seeking to remove Trump on the basis of his remarks to supporters before the rioting at the Capitol. Like others, I condemned those remarks as he gave them, calling them reckless and wrong. I also opposed the challenges to electoral votes in Congress. But his address does not meet the definition for incitement under the criminal code. It would be viewed as protected speech by the Supreme Court.
When I testified in the impeachment hearings of Trump and Bill Clinton, I noted that an article of impeachment does not have to be based on any clear crime but that Congress has looked to the criminal code to weigh impeachment offenses. For this controversy now, any such comparison would dispel claims of criminal incitement. Despite broad and justified condemnation of his words, Trump never actually called for violence or riots. But he urged his supporters to march on the Capitol to raise their opposition to the certification of electoral votes and to back the recent challenges made by a few members of Congress. Trump told the crowd “to peacefully and patriotically make your voices be heard.”
Breitbart, White House: Impeachment Will Only Further Divide the Country. And that's the point, really. And getting the band back together, from the Boston Herald, Alan Dershowitz says he would defend Trump in another impeachment trial.
Weird stuff on the Italian charges. Bit Chute, Italian Supreme Court Legal Counsel’s Affidavit on Rigged US Election. But Taylor Milliard at Hot Air tries to convince us that The Italian Defense Contractor Switched American Votes Claim Makes No Sense. Well, a lot of things that happen make no sense.
And finally, Anthony J. Ciani at Am Think, whose house is haunted by The Ghost Who Votes
My house has a ghost, a former resident that moved out in 2009 but still receives mail from unions, political campaigns and the government. On a sneaking suspicion, I contacted my state representative about my ghost. Voting records are not freely shared in Illinois, but sure enough, my ghost has been voting. My state representative won by 34 votes in 2018, now by 35 votes. Spurred on growing numbers of confirmed reports, he will present a bill to the Illinois General Assembly to clean up the voter rolls, but would such a cleanup be enough?
My ghost is the afterimage of someone who moved out, not the specter of a deceased person. In election jargon, a stale voter, a stale voter registration that votes. They were never the registered owner, and while records of their former habitation exist, there is no definitive record of their departure. Even if my ghost was the owner, although unusual, there is nothing that requires their residence to change just because the ownership changed. My state representative tried to track them down using other resources but came up with several possibilities. There is no automated means to cleanup stale voters without risking the removal of current residents, or to know how many stale voters exist on the rolls, even using other data, such as social security or tax or financial records, which are generally not accessible.
Are 1%, 10% or 50% of registered voters actually stale registrations? Most anyone telling you a number based on data analysis is certainly wrong, probably on the low end. Every year about 10% of people move, and about 16% of those move to another state, so playing the averages, about 3.2% of last elections' voters will have moved to another state and are likely still registered, and it accumulates.